Please consider this as a letter to the editor in response to
Columbine and Bloody Tuesday. I asked for permission and got
it -- with a small caveat. Her letter follows this.

LNS

Dear L. Neil -

I, too, maintain that the problem is not too many guns, but too few.
My last child graduated from private school this year (valedictorian,
TYVM). Not only is this a great school educationally - in her four
years at college for a biology major, she needs only to take one math
course - but it has a great policy. All of the kids are allowed to
bring their guns on the property. Ouch! Weird, do you think? Not
hardly. We live in a very rural county (population 28,000) where
hunting is not merely sport but a way of life. The kids have their
weapons in their gun racks in their trucks because they go out for a
little early-morning hunt and go back into the woods in the
afternoon. Everybody knows guns, everybody respects guns and the
damage that they can do - and anyone who accidentally shoots him or
herself is snickered at with "Well, you know, they were never all
that bright anyway."

The differences between this private school and public schools is
even greater, in that discipline is not merely requested, but
demanded and strictly enforced. When my daughter entered sixth grade
there, she was set upon by two boys who wanted to flex their muscle.
They did not know that she had been taking karate for three years.
She beat the crap out of both of them. In public school, she would
have been suspended for participating in a fight, whether she started
it or not. Instead, when the boys went running to the headmaster, he
simply looked at them and laughed. "Let's see, you attacked a girl
that you did not know and tried to beat her up. Instead, she beat
both of you up. Seems to me like you got what you deserved. If I were
you, I wouldn't be whining about this; I would be embarassed that a
girl beat me and my buddy up!" My daughter was not punished for
standing up for herself; in fact, she gained respect from her peers
and the teachers because she was fair and honest - and would allow no
one who could not defend themselves to be attacked.

It is this common-sense attitude that our country has wandered away
from. Now we find scapegoats and blame everybody else except the
perpetrators and bullies who perform the heinous acts. We even punish
those people who, victims of crime, stand up for themselves and shoot
or harm those 'poor, misguided' criminals. We make everyone the
problem, instead of those few who perpetrate the actual acts. When
everyone is the problem, then no one is at fault, and there is no
solution.

Then when we have terrrorists at Columbine or in the airplanes,
everyone is so shocked. They are stunned that someone could do such a
thing. I'm not shocked at all, not suprised, not stunned. Duh. What
did they think would happen when we insisted that we lived in
Never-Never Land?

Keep writing. Dig your stuff.

Bea Jones

- - -

L Neil Smith wrote:

Bea --

Great to meet you. And this was a truly delightful letter to
receive today. I wanted to ask you if I may pass it on to my
editor at The Libertarian Enterprise for possible
publication.

Absolutely. However, tell them to advise everyone to not leap up and
move right away! We are in the County of SC that has the lowest
educational level in the State - which makes us the lowest in the
nation. Which means that we have 67% dependency on the government for
everything. The private school is a bright spot in an otherwise sad,
pathetic, Democrat-controlled darkness.

Although I'm troubled by some of the speculation about what "incited"
the terrorists, I'm even more concerned about the factual errors
itemized in Vaughn Treude's letter.

Assuming that the best defense against terror is self-defense by
armed citizens (in planes, schools and churches) it would be gross
foolishness to alert hijackers by requiring that guns have a "little
electronic alarm on it in case the owner tried to remove it
surreptitiously." Such a restriction -- as much as the ban against
all firearms on aircraft -- is a ticket to oblivion.

Vaughn fears "an armed suicidal nut" might cause harm, but that can
occur anywhere with any weapon. Allowing a suicidal nut to convert an
airliner into a weapon of mass destruction is insane.

However, the fear that an accidental discharge would "at the very
least, rupture the cabin" is simply a gross error, bred from a
fanciful scene from the James Bond thriller "Goldfinger". A single
bullet cannot cause the kind explosive decompression portrayed in
that scene. In fact, a hundred bullets through the fuselage would
cause decompression, but the only risk is a minor case of oxygen
deprivation for a short period of time. There's a documented instance
of a massive decompression at high altitude: a large cockpit
windshield had been replaced, but not bolted down, and it simply flew
off at 30,000 feet. Injuries? The pilot suffered some abrasions and a
broken arm.

Mind you, I have no problem with any airline deciding to allow and
accommodate frangible ammunition, but an airline hijacking is an
imminent threat to the lives of every person on board. Each and every
one of them has a right to defend their lives.

Oddly, it is currently legal for any pilot or crew member to arm
themselves after airline certification, which does *not* include the
"psychological screening" proposed by Vaughn. Sadly, the statist
bureaucrats in the FAA are actually considering a change to the law
to *forbid* any crew from carrying a weapon!

Vaughn imagines that the strict policy of "cooperation" with
terrorists was an airline policy. It's not. The "hostage mode" is
strictly dictated by FAA regulations, which some passengers and crew
members on Flight 93 decisively violated. Rather than being
considered criminals, they should be awarded Purple Hearts for
exceptional bravery in combat. The bureaucrats who summarily disarmed
these citizens should be locked up for life.

Yes, Vaughn is correct about changing the policy and correcting the
tort liability presumptions against airlines -- who are as much
victims as any of those injured by the terrorists. In fact, the
prompt compensation to the airline industry approved by Congress is
an effective admission that the entire harm was caused by malicious
and stupid federal restrictions. In my opinion, the proper
restitution would have been to march the entire Department of
Transportation into federal jail for the duration of the "Infinite
Justice" campaign.

Accidental discharge? In a Libertarian society lawsuits by any person
harmed (or his or her family) against the person discharging the
weapon. The same remedies you would expect on the ground, in similar
circumstances.

As far as arming the crew, why would you limit them to non lethal
weapons? If someone is on board attempts what was done on 9/11, I
want them dead, dead, dead, before we have many more thousand on the
ground in that condition.

If you really want to know how, in a Libertarian society, traveling
on aircraft might be, check out L. Neil Smith's "The Probability
Broach", where at a security checkpoint, the weapons check consists
of making sure your ammunition complies with company policy.

The four-day market shutdown which ended Monday morning was the
longest for the NYSE since March, 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt
moved to halt a precipitous decline -- prompted in part by his own
unprecedented interventions in the economy, ...

Perhaps this is precisely correct, but (to pick a nit) when noting
"his own unprecedented interventions in the economy", it seems most
appropriate to note that he only took office in March of 1933, so
they were at most a month of such interventions.

Of course I agree with the substance of the article.

- - -

Vin Suprynowicz wrote:

where urban moms are afraid to let their boys play with icky toy
guns

Guns are good. If I could spare the cost, I might have one myself.
And if we had one, my wife and I would insist on our 7 year old
daughter learning to handle it safely.

However, my sons (now grown up) never played with guns. Kids should
not be taught to think of guns as toys. About the first thing they
should be taught is that guns kill (followed by when and why it is
sometimes appropriate to kill).

I promise I won't sound as a broken record (remember what those
were?)

This whole incident of Sept. 11, 2001, is being taken completely out
of context, at least by the mass media, and a few other press
organizations (if organization is what they really have).

It seems that no matter what happens here is the US, that the
'situation' is isolated to the point that nothing else matters, even
though what should be considered is ignored to the point of
distraction -- at least until someone mentions what might have led up
to it. But even then, those with credible comments are treated as
pariahs, conspiracy theorists, or worse: Part of the problem.

American news is situational, that is, it doesn't comprehend that
there are leading factors which contributed to the current situation.

Remember: Almost everything is taken out of context, and presented as
though it were an isolated incident. When you can isolate something
and expound upon it to the point of mind numbing repetition, then you
can achieve a goal: reaction.

It's as though the 'journalists' covering the 'story' are brain dead,
having no innate ability to comprehend the essence of the whole
picture, and this is strange, because in the land of the 'situation
comedy', the people who watch are almost always assessed of what
leads up to the comedic happenstance.

Why the disconnect between the news and the comedy?

I think I know why. It's because the news orgs don't want to
complicate matters to the point of distraction. If you were to REALLY
cover the news, you'd expose a whole bucket of worms that would
require more time than the allotted, and you would as well offend
your benefactors (not to mention lose the audience of Americans who
tune in, as their attention spans are usually less than a minute
long).

When one carefully considers it, the so-called 'news' programs are
nothing more than expensive productions, staffed by people who are
trained to deliver a message. Consider it to be nothing more than
another form of advertising. News isn't supposed to 'educate', since
most Americans aren't really that well educated, and 'education' is
almost always looked down upon by those who don't have it, at least
to the extent of being critical thinkers.

I know this for a fact, especially where I reside -- and work as
well. If you tell the what is the truth, you are derided, spoken of
behind your back, and essentially regarded as some kind of nut case.

If you tell people that your sources are on the 'Internet', the first
words out of their mouths are, "Well, that figures!!" Even if you
tell them that not only is the US Government on-line, but so isn't
every news organization which has network broadcasting ability, they
still deride you as some kind of 'quack'.

Obviously, if you don't quote one of their 'preferred sources', you
have no validity.

This is what passes for American news:

Give me the news -- I want someone to either hate, disparage, or
someone to love -- no matter how despicable; give me the weather,
and the sports: If my team did good, then I'm good for another
day, and if not? Kill'em! And, absolutely, do not ever tell me
something I disagree with!!

So, that's why we are never assessed of the 'why's' of what happened.
Basically, this leads to reactionary movements. It leads to the
uneducated pronouncements by the man on the street. It leads to
uninformed comments by people who should know better, and it fosters
actions by the government (perhaps premeditated) that in essence are
prefabricated opinions. So, what's new?

The bottom line?

If Americans were assessed of ALL of the leading factors which lead
up to the 9/11/01 incident, well, we would never have sent any troops
anywhere, and most certainly, the dolts in office would be swinging
from more ropes than we make in a year.

- - -

Dear John, and David [M. Brown],

I know I've already commented on the above situation, but allow me
this additional commentary:

Any discussion of the events which took place on 9/11/2001, must of
necessity also include all events which led up to those incidents. As
I said previously, to discuss only that which happened on that
aforementioned date, as though out of context, merely excuses the
inexcusable. To wit:

Suppose, that you go out into another's neighborhood, and raise hell
there. Let's say that you severely beat-up someone, merely that s/he
said something that irritated you -- or worse yet, one of your
companions.

Now, the neighbors of the victim are going to want justice -- in some
form. However the people in your own neighborhood are entirely
unaware of your actions.

Then again, maybe they aren't so unaware.

Let's say that you do this several times. Let's also say that you
have a propensity for not minding your own business. Let's also say
that you are funding some kind of racket, where one of the neighbors
in that other neighborhood is taking unfair advantage of his own
neighbors, and periodically instigates harmful incidents with them.

Sooner or later, the chickens (or turkeys) are going to come home to
roost. Maybe you disagree with this analysis, maybe not. But the old
saying of 'I was totally ignorant' doesn't play well in a court of US
law, when there was a prosecutable crime going on right under your
own nose.

So, you might say that you either agree with what the US has been
doing in other people's neighborhoods all these years, or you can
pretend ignorance.

The WTC and the Pentagon are virtually NOTHING compared to the death
and destruction wrought by the US government, in other people's
lands.

The US government is a damned bully. It has been trashing other
people's homes on a fairly regular schedule -- almost from the
beginning.

If you even THINK that acts against others have no consequences,
THINK again. If I punch you in the face, what are you gonna do, turn
the other cheek? That works only a few times, after which the creator
invokes the severance clause, and demands that self-defence take
over. The term 'arse holes and elbows' then becomes the most
operative: severe arse kicking time.

Bin Laden is the one dude who has decided to take on Goliath, and
kick ass.

A bit more than a small part of me is cheering him on, because it he
can manage to drain the military resources of this
fascist/communist/pretorian government of ours to the point that no
American wants to get involved anymore -- because their sons and
daughters are dying by the hundreds of thousands in some creator
forsaken place, as well as at home as in somebody else's land -- then
he will have achieved a Libertarian goal: Getting us to mind our own
bloody damned business, and telling the whore of commerce to peddle
her wares elsewhere. The whore is what got us into this mess to begin
with: The oil companies, the banks, and other 'special interests' who
were attempting to screw with the foreign locals.

Chances are that if bin Laden is successful, then the rest of
the world will actually experience some kind of liberty. But, I'm not
holding my breath, because people in the US haven't opened their eyes
to the realities -- yet.

Granted a single person with a 5 shot .38 could have an excellent
chance of stopping adversaries armed with box cutters. However, in
the scenario you mention, "-- the unalienable, individual, civil,
Constitutional, and human right of every man, woman, and responsible
child to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon,
rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything, any time, any
place, without asking anyone's permission.", it is without a doubt,
the terrorists would have been armed with more than box cutters.

But then, so would the passengers.

The more pervasive problem, is that refuted by a few of the
passengers on Flight 93 that crashed outside of Pittsburgh. In our
society today, we have been conditioned to "go along to get along".
Give the thief, mugger, terrorist, what he wants so you don't get
hurt.

Well, the passengers on Flight 93 got hurt, but how many hundreds of
people on the ground didn't, because of the passengers bravery and
honor? Would there have been some of their ilk on the other three
flights.

It is not only the encroachment of the Bill of Rights that is to
blame for this tragedy, it is also the cultural war that has been
waged by the statists, that has cost us so much.

Much has been said in this forum and in others as to what we need to
do, politically. The time is now, for our freedoms have never been
more at stake.

It's easier than you'd think, to win the war against freedom. Not
just by convincing mewling, "moderate" totalitarians of the
Republocratic Party to abandon soccer-mom Fascism in favor of a more
muscular Prussian variety--that's beyond easy. That's giving them the
opportunity to do what they wanted to do all along, but didn't have
the chutzpah to try until now.

Winning the war against freedom means taking those who have most
rationally, most consistently, and most passionately argued for
individual rights and getting them to adopt and publically advocate
policies more totalitarian than any of their political opponents. By
this standard, Osama bin Laden has all but won.

When Leonard Peikoff, the Intellectual Error of Ayn Rand advocated
ruthless suppression of militias and the use of America's "most
potent and destructive" weapons--multimegaton thermonuclear
warheads--against Arab nations if terrorists carried out an attack
with weapons of mass destruction, it's fairly easy to dismiss him.
He's been a parasite on Rand's corpse and waged repeated Stalinistic
purges of the movement she created for decades, and hates
Libertarians to boot.

It's a bit harder to deal with Jack Wheeler's proposal to threaten to
nuke Mecca--and however many hundreds of thousands of non-terrorist
people visiting that city to worship as they choose--if terrorists
make another mass-destruction strike against the United States. Jack
Wheeler, an individualist adventurer whose life story reads like a
combination of Indiana Jones and Marco Polo, architect of the "Reagan
Doctrine" to defeat the Soviet Union by supporting the many
insurgencies in its vast empire, seems to be the kind of person the
word "hero" was invented to describe.

Maybe he can be forgiven for thinking that a policy of Mecca Assured
Destruction can turn gangs of fanatical religious zealots into Soviet
Politburos who would rather wage a Cold War than a die in a hot one.
Maybe he thinks it's a good gamble that we could make every single
Muslim into a mortal enemy of the United States without some group of
ten or a hundred of them ever thinking that glow-in-the-dark ruins
might be the perfect thing to really get the Jihad going. Maybe he's
just brainstorming. Or maybe we can just define him out of
libertarianism due to his work with the Reagan Administration and
blame him for helping arm the mujihadeen in the first place.

But the worst, most shocking and sickening betrayal of libertarianism
I've seen to date is an article called "Tear Down the Taleban...Not
the Bill of Rights" allegedly written by Vin Suprynowicz right here
in The Libertarian Enterprise.http://webleyweb.com/tle/libe140-20010924-09.html

Just as he was about to finish another well-written article, an
orbital mind-control laser came on and made Suprynowicz (or perhaps
the vicious barbarian thug who's impersonating him) write:

3) Make war in Southwest Asia by following the rules of the last
fellow to successfully conquer the place. Genghis Khan graciously
accepted the peaceful surrender of any city that would send him
tribute ... even allowing them to keep their religion and customs.
Those who demurred were left with no stone standing atop another.
Their surviving male inhabitants had their hamstrings cut so
they'd be crippled for life, while their women and children were
herded back to China to serve as slaves and concubines.

"The greatest happiness is to crush your enemies and drive them
before you," the great Khan advised, "to see his cities reduced to
ashes; to see those who love him shrouded in tears; and to gather
to your bosom his wives and daughters."

...Instead, the question now arises whether we have the strength
of resolve to visit exotic lands, meet interesting people, kill
them, get children on their wives and daughters, teach the
resulting brats to play baseball, and barbecue their goats,
leaving strangers who may happen upon the resulting piles of
rubble a thousand years from now to scratch their heads and wonder
if the people who once lived here had a name.

Does Suprynowicz really think it's moral to rape women and girls just
because they happened to have been brutalized by our enemies first?
The Taleban is the most repressive regime to women on the planet.
Does the once-vaunted Vin propose something sensible like smuggling
in compact, concealable handguns in a variety of stylish colors? No,
he advises that we conquer the Taleban and continue their reign of
terror in America's name.

Vin, do you think terrorists hate us now because the U.S. practiced a
foreign policy based on the half-hearted wussy barbarism of Bill and
Hillary Clinton? How will they feel--how should any human being
feel--if we adopt a foreign policy modeled on that of Genghis Khan?

OK, let's say it's perfectly moral for American soldiers to rape
women and girls in foreign lands so long as they don't do the same to
American girls. Let's say that individual rights and non-initiation
of force aren't principles that apply to everyone and that
totalitarianism is just fine as long as it's something we do to
foreigners.

Vin, do you really, honestly think that a US military with the
"strength and resolve" to ravage millions of women and set up a new
Empire of the Golden Horde abroad would not do the same thing here?
As if the willingness to rape women en masse was some kind of heroic
quality America ought to call for in its young men in uniform! As if
rape and brutality can be paired with teaching kids to play baseball
as a wholesome family activity!

Do you have a daughter? How would you feel, a few years down the
road, when one of these soldiers come home from his noble "service"
and starts looking at her? How can you expect a million serial rapist
veterans of the Afghan War to come home and become civilized,
freedom-respecting men?

Or do you want to leave them there, forever, as a permanent Army of
Occupation, keeping their harems in abject submission and "teaching
the resulting brats to play baseball?" Under those circumstances,
there won't be any possibility of spreading the ideas of individual
liberty and freeing everyone, man, woman, and responsible child to
buy, own, carry, concealed or openly, the firearm of their choice,
without asking anyone for permission. The Red White and Blue Horde
wouldn't last long if that were the case. Which is the whole point.
This leads to the basis for a sane policy that could actually work,
which I will address in another article.

The nostalgic Taliban pray for a return to the conditions of the 13th
century. Time to oblige them. No thanks. I don't want to oblige them.
I don't want to live in a 13th Century Mongol tyranny. I would rather
see them dragged, kicking and screaming, into a 21st Century--no, a
FIRST Century A.L.--of reason, enlightenment, and unbreached
individual liberty. That's what libertarians in general, and The
Libertarian Enterprise in particular are supposed to be about. Says
so right on the masthead.

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who
act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether
they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it
are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. -- L.
Neil Smith (emphasis added)

By this definition, Vin Suprynowicz is not a libertarian regardless
of what he may claim. If TLE is to retain its credibility as a
libertarian publication, Vin Suprynowicz has to go. He should no
longer be an honorary editor, having dishonored both himself and TLE.
Future articles from him should be treated the same way as a
submission from any other non-libertarian, such as Janet Reno.

Even the Waco Killers had enough shame, enough vestige of
civilization to try to cover their atrocities up instead of publicly
advocating the same be done on a scale of millions. Heck, even the
bloody Nazis tried to hide their crimes. A President Suprynowicz
would conduct terrorism and genocide openly and proudly! If this
article represents Vin's thinking, the only thing keeping him from
joining the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and his new hero
Genghis Khan is the lack of an army at his command.

I can't think of any way to justify or excuse this article. It's not
a visceral reaction expressed in shock and anger the day of the
attack by a shrunken arch-conservative/nationalist mentality, along
the lines of "let's nuke the bastards 'till they glow!" It was
written--and published--over a week after the attack. Time enough to
reflect and seriously consider what ought to be done. Time enough to
think on one's principles and apply them to the situation.

Placed as it was, as one of a list of proposals including things like
"Restore the right of all law-abiding Americans (including air crews)
to carry firearms whenever and wherever they travel." it cannot be
dismissed as hyperbole, metaphor, or jest. Vin Suprynowicz has got to
go. It's either him or that quote by El Neil on the masthead and the
"L" of TLE.

How do you turn a "libertarian" into a monster? Just commit a large
enough atrocity and watch them start to abandon their principles. So
far, "libertarians" like Peikoff (well, the ARIans don't like that
label), Wheeler, and Suprynowicz have offered "solutions" far more
vicious, collectivist, and totalitarian than anything I've seen from
the "moderates" of the political Establishment on CNN and Fox News,
with Suprynowicz arguably the worst of the lot. I doubt even Pat
Buchanan or Jerry Falwell would offer Genghis Khan as a role model
for America.

The fact that noted commentators with the sharpest minds and deepest
knowledge of the principles of individual liberty and the evidence of
their validity default to savage, totalitarian primitivism in the
face of a terrorist attack has dire implications for the survival of
a libertarian society.

"'Lucy, even if we knew,' I answered bitterly, 'how could we do
anything about it? You people and your goddamned principles!'

She kicked an empty carton. 'I dunno. Guess I'd rather have my
principles shot from under me than finish 'em off myself."

The following appeared in one of my mailing lists. It might bear
repeating in a Letter to the Editor of TLE.

Phil Zimmerman has long been one of the victims of government run
amok. I won't recount his various problems here (you can find those
for yourself). This letter was posted in the hope of countering a
recent interview with Zimmerman in which his views regarding the PGP
encryption algorythm were completely mistrepresented. The paper in
question was clearly attempting to make it appear as though
Zimmermen were distraught over what he felt was "Complicity" in
Bloody Tuesday because his encryption program may have been used by
terrorists.

This was a tissue of lies, manufactured by the "free press" to drum
up support for forthcoming illegal and Unconstitutional legislation
to criminalize the use of encryption algorythms that cannot be
easily decrypted by the FedGov.

Here is Zimmerman's response:

No Regrets About Developing PGP

The Friday September 21st Washington Post carried an article by
Ariana Cha that I feel misrepresents my views on the role of PGP
encryption software in the September 11th terrorist attacks. She
interviewed me on Monday September 17th, and we talked about how I
felt about the possibility that the terrorists might have used PGP
in planning their attack. The article states that as the inventor
of PGP, I was "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt". I never
implied that in the interview, and specifically went out of my way
to emphasize to her that that was not the case, and made her
repeat back to me this point so that she would not get it wrong in
the article. This misrepresentation is serious, because it implies
that under the duress of terrorism I have changed my principles on
the importance of cryptography for protecting privacy and civil
liberties in the information age.

Because of the political sensitivity of how my views were to be
expressed, Ms. Cha read to me most of the article by phone before
she submitted it to her editors, and the article had no such
statement or implication when she read it to me. The article that
appeared in the Post was significantly shorter than the original,
and had the abovementioned crucial change in wording. I can only
speculate that her editors must have taken some inappropriate
liberties in abbreviating my feelings to such an inaccurate
soundbite.

In the interview six days after the attack, we talked about the
fact that I had cried over the heartbreaking tragedy, as everyone
else did. But the tears were not because of guilt over the fact
that I developed PGP, they were over the human tragedy of it all.
I also told her about some hate mail I received that blamed me for
developing a technology that could be used by terrorists. I told
her that I felt bad about the possibility of terrorists using PGP,
but that I also felt that this was outweighed by the fact that PGP
was a tool for human rights around the world, which was my
original intent in developing it ten years ago. It appears that
this nuance of reasoning was lost on someone at the Washington
Post. I imagine this may be caused by this newspaper's staff being
stretched to their limits last week.

In these emotional times, we in the crypto community find
ourselves having to defend our technology from well-intentioned
but misguided efforts by politicians to impose new regulations on
the use of strong cryptography. I do not want to give ammunition
to these efforts by appearing to cave in on my principles. I think
the article correctly showed that I'm not an ideologue when faced
with a tragedy of this magnitude. Did I re-examine my principles
in the wake of this tragedy? Of course I did. But the outcome of
this re-examination was the same as it was during the years of
public debate, that strong cryptography does more good for a
democratic society than harm, even if it can be used by
terrorists. Read my lips: I have no regrets about developing PGP.

The question of whether strong cryptography should be restricted
by the government was debated all through the 1990's. This debate
had the participation of the White House, the NSA, the FBI, the
courts, the Congress, the computer industry, civilian academia,
and the press. This debate fully took into account the question of
terrorists using strong crypto, and in fact, that was one of the
core issues of the debate. Nonetheless, society's collective
decision (over the FBI's objections) was that on the whole, we
would be better off with strong crypto, unencumbered with
government back doors. The export controls were lifted and no
domestic controls were imposed. I feel this was a good decision,
because we took the time and had such broad expert participation.
Under the present emotional pressure, if we make a rash decision
to reverse such a careful decision, it will only lead to terrible
mistakes that will not only hurt our democracy, but will also
increase the vulnerability of our national information
infrastructure.

PGP users should rest assured that I would still not acquiesce to
any back doors in PGP.

It is noteworthy that I had only received a single piece of hate
mail on this subject. Because of all the press interviews I was
dealing with, I did not have time to quietly compose a carefully
worded reply to the hate mail, so I did not send a reply at all.
After the article appeared, I received hundreds of supportive
emails, flooding in at two or three per minute on the day of the
article.

I have always enjoyed good relations with the press over the past
decade, especially with the Washington Post. I'm sure they will
get it right next time.

While the events of September 11 opened up several 'windows of
opportunity' for the Libertarian cause, already we see some of those
windows closing. While several contributors to these pages,
rightfully mentioned that an armed American population would easily
protect our airspace, I do not think the general American public
considered this option at all. While 72% of the American public
support the concept of arming commercial pilots, apparently the
Victim Disarmament movement has also foiled this noble idea.

The situation in Afghanistan appears to be one of 'bombs and bread'.
The United States is rightfully holding the terrorist cells and the
Talaban regime accountable for their deeds; however, there seems to
be a justifiable sympathy for the Afghan population as a whole, as
mostly innocent bystanders. With the elimination of the Talaban
however, these bystanders will become a chaotic mob of refuges, with
well armed factions and 'tribal associations' that have been the
cause of great disruption and suffering in the recent Afghanistan
past.

These people themselves, are being charactized as hardy and
self-sufficient and well armed. These are valuable traits for a
Libertarian society. I suggest, and solicit your opinions, that
perhaps these people could be willing to embrace the Libertian pledge
of non-initiation of aggression to others, understanding the
Libertian collorary, that response to aggression IN others, can be
met with responses up to, and including deadly force. If "More guns,
less crime" is really true, what better testing ground than
Afghanistan in the Post-Talaban environment.

Of course this idea will meet resistance to the world community, who
will want to immediately 'disarm' the victims; however, chaos will
obviously be the first result in Afghanistan, if it is not already.
An armed truce, probably requiring American committment of troops
will be required to maintain order. Neverless, it is in our own
selfish self-interest to see a stable community rise from the ashes
of the current Afghanistan, if only to protect ourselves from more
terrorist attacks. Since the people are divided and fiercely
independent, engaging in constantly shifting alliances, it is almost
impossible to impose a 'world order' externally. I ask, Why should
we? These people seem an ideal candidate for a Libertarian
civilization if we can committ to supporting them from external
influences while they order and establish themselves and work out the
details amongst themselves. Yes there may be a little 'collateral
damage' as the idiots and thugs learn the Libertarian response to
violation of the Libertian pledge, but honestly, it has to be fewer
casulities than the current situation is spawning.

Today, in the aftermath of a horror unimaginable in our lifetime,
I am reminded of the impact fear has on us and how we react.

Daily we are barraged with information through the media, be it
television, radio, or the Internet that instills fear: "Gunman
attacks at local high school", "Aids at an all time high", or "Ten
dead in multi-car pile up on highway". It is endless, and a
constant reminder to us all how fragile life is, and we are
afraid.

Because of our fears, we have allowed laws to pass that govern our
individual choices: Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gun laws, drug
laws, parenting laws, and the list goes on. Instead of holding the
irresponsible accountable for their actions, we have decided to
punish the majority. The "Powers That Be" use fear to get us to
succumb to their ideals, and we allow it because we are afraid of
the actions of others and the losses we may incur. Fear is a
powerful way to control people and has been used through out
history to take control of the masses under the pretext of being
for "our own good".

On September 11th, 2001, when the unthinkable happened here in the
United States, it added new fears to our list of many. New laws
will be passed, more freedoms removed, and our lives here in the
United States, if not world wide, will be altered forever. It
saddens me to think that instead of dying for the cause of
freedom, as thousands upon thousands have in the past before them,
the victims of this atrocity will be lost at the expense of it.

I bring this up now, only because American's are at their finest
in a time of crisis. We are true to ourselves, true to each other,
and braver then ever. Today we are strong, involved, and active in
our country and community. We are united in a cause far more
powerful than our own personal needs. We can see outside of our
individual boxes and feel the pain of those around us. Today we
have a voice! Today we care about more than ourselves.

Please don't let this tragedy change the foundation for which
America is based on. Don't let the lives of so many be lost in
vain. We are united in this great nation - use this time of
sadness and unity to make our country more powerful than ever by
giving back the power to the people as individuals. Trust in
yourselves to make the right choices, trust in your neighbors to
do the right things. Goodness surrounds us. You can see it in the
heroic efforts of so many men and women today, you can feel it in
others as you pass them on the street, despite the horror of such
evil.

We do not need to save ourselves from each other. We need to
embrace our differences and grow from them. What will keep us safe
is zero tolerance to the wrong doings of the few. Hold individuals
accountable and keep the rest of us free!